Idiotic Democrats stage sit-in for gun control on the House floor

Sean Renaud said:

That once a company moves it's headquarters to America it becomes American. It is no longer Swiss. I have no idea why you two would argue over such an insignificant detail but whatever.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

It didn't sparky, it formed a wholly owned subsidiary in the US. Like Toyota, Volkswagen, etc. Legal structures for the purposes of taxes etc.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

*chuckle*


Are you looking forward to the press conference about to commence?

How proud of you are you, this morning, of a nation which regulates and "hounds" puppy mills 100 times more than they are willing to make sure a woman can survive her abortion?

Click to expand...

(c) The surgical-center requirement also provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an “undue burden” on their constitutional right to do so. Before this requirement was enacted, Texas law required abortion facilities to meet a host of health and safety requirements that were policed by inspections and enforced through administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. Record evidence shows that the new provision imposes a number of additional requirements that are generally unnecessary in the abortion clinic context; that it provides no benefit when complications arise in the context of a medical abortion, which would generally occur after a patient has left the facility; that abortions taking place in abortion facilities are safer than common procedures that occur in outside clinics not subject to Texas’ surgicalcenter requirements ; and that Texas has waived no part of the requirement for any abortion clinics as it has done for nearly two-thirds of other covered
facilities. This evidence, along with the absence of any contrary evidence, supports the District Court’s conclusions, including its ultimate legal conclusion that requirement is not necessary. At the same time, the record provides adequate evidentiary support for the District Court’s conclusion that the requirement places a substantiall obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion. The court found that it “strained credulity” to think that the seven or eight abortion facilities would be able to meet the demand.

Click to expand...

miles said:

"She gotta have-a bigg-a tits. You can make it?"

One of the all time best punchlines.

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

I have read the Thomas dissent and I agree with him.



There was nothing at all that bad about the Texas law other than it touched the Holy Sacrament of Liberalism. Under the logic of the court, almost any restriction can now be viewed as a "roadblock" to a woman getting an abortion; it opens up a pandora's box of Leftwing lawsuits that will leave women less safe, in short I think that a political desire to promote abortion in the name of women's health has actually introduced the possibility of just the opposite, I cite the type of care Gosnell was rendering to the underprivileged. This is a way to intimidate state governments to have a hands-off fear of the abortion industry.

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

At least with the Colonel I can have a conversation because he understands the law and what dissenting opinions are.

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

At least with the Colonel I can have a conversation because he understands the law and what dissenting opinions are.

Click to expand...

MichaelinChina said:

Complete waste of effort isn't it?

Up against Republickans, and the NRA...

besides...my sig says it all. Perhaps one day you pricks will understand.

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

At least with the Colonel I can have a conversation because he understands the law and what dissenting opinions are.

Click to expand...

“Where [the State] has a rational basis to act and it does not impose an undue burden,” this Court previously held, “the State may use its regulatory power” to impose regulations “in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

And to that point, the dissents of Thomas and Alito struck me as hypertechnical arguments surrounding res judicata and the Courts' liberal interpretation of that doctrine as far back as the 1990s. Seems to me that ship has sailed.

Additionally, Thomas placed great weight on the Court's prior ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, to wit:



But it was that very "rational basis to act" which the majority effectively repudiated (imho), and for Thomas to claim that irrationally saddling abortion clinics with requirements to put a significant number of them out of business does not constitute an "undue burden" on women seeking an otherwise lawful abortion flies in the face of his own rationality.

But more importantly, the whole thrust of the Texas law imposing NEW clinical requirements on abortion facilities appeared disturbingly similar to the charade of literacy tests imposed on black voters a half century or so ago in the deep South.

In attacking such common sense violation of individual rights, the Court's most recent opinion on abortion follows a familiar pattern. The majority follows a common sense reading of the Constitution, statute or prior Court precedent. The minority cites whatever (arguably) misapplied precedents it can find.

There is no better example of that pattern than D. C. v. Heller where the Court found an obvious individual right endorsed by the Constitution to bear arms and the minority went digging for the most oblique application of its one prior ruling in apparent support of the "well regulated militia" qualification. Same thing.

Click to expand...

NOIRTRASH said:

http://lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

THE MILITIA

Click to expand...

L1tTleD1fferent said:

You understand what your sig (according to you, not facts) says. I'll understand that actions speak louder than words (or links to words, quotes folks never said, & remembrances of the dead).

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

And to that point, the dissents of Thomas and Alito struck me as hypertechnical arguments surrounding res judicata and the Courts' liberal interpretation of that doctrine as far back as the 1990s. Seems to me that ship has sailed.

Additionally, Thomas placed great weight on the Court's prior ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, to wit:



But it was that very "rational basis to act" which the majority effectively repudiated (imho), and for Thomas to claim that irrationally saddling abortion clinics with requirements to put a significant number of them out of business does not constitute an "undue burden" on women seeking an otherwise lawful abortion flies in the face of his own rationality.

But more importantly, the whole thrust of the Texas law imposing NEW clinical requirements on abortion facilities appeared disturbingly similar to the charade of literacy tests imposed on black voters a half century or so ago in the deep South.

In attacking such common sense violation of individual rights, the Court's most recent opinion on abortion follows a familiar pattern. The majority follows a common sense reading of the Constitution, statute or prior Court precedent. The minority cites whatever (arguably) misapplied precedents it can find.

There is no better example of that pattern than D. C. v. Heller where the Court found an obvious individual right endorsed by the Constitution to bear arms and the minority went digging for the most oblique application of its one prior ruling in apparent support of the "well regulated militia" qualification. Same thing.

Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:

I still do not find anything here like a literacy test or an undue burden. I do not think asking them to act like any other type of clinic is denying a woman her right to an abortion, but it sure did pace them on the same level as dog breeders.

Click to expand...

MichaelinChina said:

I wish you could write in plain clear English!

Click to expand...

NeverEndingMe said:

only the obama welfare slaves would approve of a "sit-in"

sad but so is the democrat party

Click to expand...